The conversation seems now to be focusing on judgements and, specifically, on ‘moral’ judgements. I say, ‘moral’, because, at an early stage, you told me that that
That suggests that a judgement can be made of the action independently of ‘the man’....the action may be judged to be immoral but not the man.
Not only that, but you have specified that it can be a moral judgement. We could, of course, call on a huge range of vocabulary to describe an action and the choice of vocabulary would imply some form of judgement. But I am refering to moral judgement of an action.
I have asked you, repeatedly, how you would make such a moral assessment. I have asked you to suggest criteria for judgement. Each time that I have asked about such a judgement, you have brought in the issue of judging the person and you have usually associated it with competence, even though this is only one factor among many. This is irrelevant and you have confirmed this:
I have been asking about independent moral judgement of the action. I am asking for explanations, not assertions.Competency has no bearing on the action, only on the actor.
You have also claimed:
This seems very similar to the first claim. So I want to know how you would morally judge the action. I don’t want to know about judgement of the person or anything about competency. I want to know about moral judgement of the action because you are suggesting that judgements can be made separately.If we are not judging the person then we are judging the action.
In post #74, you said:
It strikes me here that, if you say that “the action remains” and you have already said that the action can be judged morally, then it is very much a matter of judging the action independent of the actor.It is not a matter of judging the action independent of the actor, it is that even when the actor is not morally responsible, the action remains.
So, here is the rub. More recently you have stated:
If a ‘moral assessment’ does not treat the actor and the action independently, then how can an action be judged to be immoral but not 'the man'? Does that not mean precisely the opposite? How can ‘the action remain’?In general, however, a moral assessment takes both the actor and the action into consideration and does not treat them independently.
Have you changed your mind?
A first-class wriggle. The additional information which has come to light is the apparent contradiction in statements which you have made.Changed my mind about what? I do not think I have changed my mind about anything. I did say that my assessment of a particular individual or a particular action might change if additional information comes to light.
In relation to the “in general …” of your new statement, I asked about exceptions:
Sort of OK so far, though you have not specified that the moral judgements are made together and not separately.Once again, different cases are treated differently. In most cases there is a judgment of both the actor and the action.
“… always immoral without exception”is an assertion and not an explanation. Neither does it give any idea of how that determination can be made, independently of the person initiating the action. Once more, it doesn’t answer the question.There are, however, exceptions: When it has been determined by a qualified professional that a person is not competent then no moral judgment is made of that person. When the action is one that is always immoral without exception then the action can be judged without regard to the person.
Here you are resorting once more to the irrelevant competency argument. You have made no reference to separate moral judgement of the action. Yet again, you resort out of desperation to judgement of the person. You have suggested that there are exceptions but you have only written about irrelevant judgement of the person.But since moral judgments are about actors and actions even when the action is judged to be immoral we may still judge the person who is competent. If and how that person is judged must be taken on a case by case basis.
For the umpteenth time I asked you how you would judge the action. Your replies are becoming more and more desperate:
What action?
For crying out loud. Any action which you can judge, morally, to be independent of the actor.
In the context of our conversation, I don’t care, particularly, what your personal judgements are. They are assertions. I want to know why you make them. I want you to explain what criteria you use to make your moral judgements. Particularly when you separate the actor from the action. You have not told me.I have said that I will always judge some actions such as child torture and murder to be immoral.
That is irrelevant. I asked about the action, not the actor!
Other actions are judged on a case by case basis and usually take into consideration the actor.
I asked: “If you reject competency, then can you still make a separate moral judgement of the action? If so, then how?”
Another wriggle. We have been here so many times before. I want to know about the action, independent of the actor. The competency, as you have already admitted, is irrelevant.I am not sure what this means. If you mean that it has been determined that the person is not competent, then the person is not morally responsible and is not morally judged.
I have asked you to deliberate – to explain to me – and you refuse to do so.The action, however, was still committed and we can deliberate as to the morality of the action - is it morally permissible to do X?
So, if all you can say is that this is an issue which raises questions, then you have said absolutely nothing to justify exceptions to your statement:It should be kept in mind that moral judgment is not only about what has been done, but is also about what should or should not be done. We can and do raise questions about actions that have not yet been done. We can and do ask if we or someone else should or should not do 'X'.
So, for the fourth time, in relation to your previous statements about judging actors and actions separately, have you changed your mind?In general, however, a moral assessment takes both the actor and the action into consideration and does not treat them independently.
-- Updated 24 Apr 2017, 11:48 to add the following --
Reply to Spectrum:
I notice that you have ignored all the significant aspects of my last post and have decided, instead, to concentrate on a definition of the word, ‘system’. I know what a system is and, if I didn’t, then I am quite capable of looking it up. What you haven’t done is to explain the significance of term in the context of your proposal for laws which are inflexible, prescriptive, prejudging and contrary to all concepts of human justice.
Your ‘system’ is not only ‘very complex’ but also very silly.
-- Updated 24 Apr 2017, 12:09 to add the following --
Reply to Belindi:
Belindi, I offered examples of philosophers who have written in contradiction of the idea of ‘fixed goals’. It was to make the point to Spectrum that such views existed. I am not particularly interested in discussing them because I don’t see that it has direct relevance.Spinoza depended his large ethical system from reason. Nietzsche supported freedom from unreason. Hume was reason personified; look at his statue in Edinburgh placed where he confronts the statue of John Knox. Hume said "The rules of morality are not the conclusion of our reason."
It didn’t so much object as disagree. Because you asked me. I offered many alternatives, including base, ignoble, dishonourable, corrupt, iniquitous, degenerate, villainous, nefarious, sinister, vicious and malevolent. I did not say that they were synonymous because I didn’t want them to be. That was the point. If you want ‘evil’ to imply demonaic possession, then please use ‘evil’. It would be appropriate. If you did not want to imply supernatural intervention, then I suggest one of my alternatives might suffice. If not, you could use a combination of words. But the combination would depend on what precise meaning you wanted to convey.BTW, Iapetus, in a later post you sort of objected to my usage of 'evil' ,saying in effect that evil implies supernatural. True, many people think that this connotation of 'evil' defines the concept of evil. The problem for me is finding a word that substitutes for 'evil' without the connotation of supernatural.
If you know of a synonym for 'evil' which is as all-embracing but lacks the supernatural connotation please tell.